Charities have rightly condemned the government's decision to strip them of the principal responsibility to counsel women considering abortion (Minister backs anti-abortion lobby reforms, 29 August). I am deeply concerned by the article's suggestion that the government had been swayed by an anti-abortion lobby group. We do not know exactly which group the lobby firm represents but the lead voice in the debate, Nadine Dorries MP, who has campaigned relentlessly to amend the health and social care bill, has admitted she received advice from the head of the Christian Fellowship, Dr Peter Saunders. It is untrue that vulnerable women who seek a termination do not receive adequate counselling. My concern is that counselling services will be offered by groups ideologically opposed to abortion, and then we are in exceptionally dangerous territory.

Mary Honeyball MEP

Labour spokesperson on women's rights

• Your article (How Christian activists' grab for moral agenda has been 40 years in the making, 29 August) was an excellent exposure of the tactics used by those with a regressive political agenda. Just 45 years ago contraceptive materials were only available to married women (or couples with the bans posted) and abortion illegal. People like me campaigned away and once David Steel's 1967 abortion act was passed imagined the matter was settled. How naïve! The chisellers always come back, this time repackaged as Christian social conservatives and cleverly cloaking their goal of stopping abortions (or at least make it more difficult to get one) behind a concern to open up counselling to non-specialist (ie their) agencies. It is vital for the report stage of the health and social care bill on 6-7 September that those who care about women's rights and commonsense lobby hard against this change. If your MP hasn't heard from you, you've little time left. The lesson for social justice "progressives" is that unless we organise better than them for the long term, and have smarter tactics, we will be on the back foot – as we are on abortion right now.

Sara Parkin

London

• For a patient to consent to any medical treatment requires someone with appropriate expertise ensuring the patient fully understands the risks, benefits and alternatives. This currently happens in the UK when women request an abortion. If ministers fear there is a conflict of interest when experts in abortion counsel women over pregnancy, presumably the next step will be to regulate all medical procedures similarly. Would the government like conservative Christian laypeople to advise patients on gall bladder removal or obesity surgery, to ensure surgeons are not persuading ambivalent patients to undergo procedures against their will?

• Without evidence suggesting the British Pregnancy Advisory Service is steering unwilling women towards abortion at all, let alone in "increasing numbers", the health department and Nadine Dorries make much of the apparent conflict of interest of BPAS providing advice and carrying out abortions. For consistency, will we now see the government and partners' alcohol working group reformed so that representatives of the drinks industry do not form the majority of members? Or the government joining with other EU members to form a credit ratings agency that doesn't depend for its funding on keeping clients happy?

Chris Manners

London

• By law, women have the right to terminate their pregnancy in a certain timescale. They may find the need for counselling and advice. Yet there is also divided opinion on whether they should be even allowed to terminate their pregnancies. Male MPs greatly outnumber female MPs. Could we not take a leaf out of Tam Dalyell's book, The West Lothian Question, and insist male MPs do not have a vote on purely female issues. And in the unlikely event that Andrew Lansley and Frank Field ever fell pregnant, then, and only then, would they be eligible to vote on women's issues.

K Wilson

Edinburgh

The ultimate goal of anti-abortion campaigners is to render all abortion illegal, contrary to the wishes of the 83% of British people who support a woman's right to choose. They know that the rich, powerful and privileged will always be able to evade inconvenient laws. So they opt for incremental, whittling attacks on rights to safe, legal and free abortions, knowing that the poorest and weakest will suffer most. The trade union movement, together with all UK political parties with pro-choice policies, should recognise the class nature of this latest pernicious attack and unite with women's organisations to defeat it.

Mary Pimm

London

Especially over the weeks since the riots, the government's sheep's clothing has become more and more tattered: Cameron is obviously in thrall to his rightwing backbenchers to keep his job. Now the wolf's head has appeared again – the Nasty Party is nakedly back. Funded by the Christian right, this denigration of the Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes are part of open efforts again to stop women's right to choose.

Each generation, these vicious reactionaries try to control, reduce, or end women's reproductive rights. Many of us remember the 80s when it was done under Thatcher. They never give up. Each time they must be fought off for the sake of our young girls growing to vulnerable womanhood now. If Clegg supports any of this he and his party should lose those few progressive votes they still hold. As for the Tory party and its coalition, it can now be seen clearly for what it is – socially regressive and repressive as well as demonstrating all its other incompetencies. I certainly won't wonder again about whether a liberal heart might beat in Cameron and his crew. We older ones have just been here too often before. Forget sheep-skins; it's a recognisable stinky old t-shirt that deserves to be thrown out immediately!